Labour to ban external working MP’s?(35 Posts)
There is nothing like new Labour anti business, anti Conservative, Trade Union friendly ‘red meat’ policies to throw to the party faithful near election time – and this nothing like a new red meat policy.
New Labour thought of this under Brown in 2008 (see link further below) but Labour had many ex ministers now in ministry related private sector jobs AND in 2009 it was thought that at least 120 Labour MP’s were going to stand down at the 2010 General Election, but they had to hang around until then or not qualify for generous taxpayer pay offs.
“Labour MPs will be banned from receiving any income from corporations after 2015, one of Ed Miliband's key advisers has said.”
“Shadow cabinet minister Jon Trickett, a member of Miliband's inner circle, revealed Labour would legislate to apply this to MPs from all parties should it win the next election.”
“In an interview with The Huffington Post UK's Mehdi Hasan, Trickett said Labour wanted "to stop people from working for corporations, receiving money from corporations, as members of parliament."
“Trickett, who is also the deputy chair of the Labour Party, said: "If you stand as a Labour candidate at the next election you will not be allowed after that election to continue receiving money as an employee of a corporation."
“The Institute of Directors (IoD) condemned the plan as "ill-thought-through" and warned it would alienate MPs from the owners of small, medium-sized and family owned businesses.”
July 2008 – “New Labour plan will ban MPs from taking on lucrative second jobs.”
“A ban on MPs taking lucrative second jobs is under consideration by Gordon Brown.”
“The Prime Minister is looking at measures to rid the Commons of its 'snouts in the trough' image.”
“The move comes as the number of former ministers using their connections to secure private sector posts has surged to the highest level since 1997”.
Sooooo much 'class warrior' Labour energy is spent trying to attack the Conservatives directly and set policy traps, rather than come up with real policies for the people.
Ooops..first line should read 'look at the para on my last post starting "Furthermore" re the 'original argument'.
JassyRadlett...look at the para on my last most re the "original argument".
Nothing hysterical here about Labour's relationship with the trade unions, just facts/worries now and in the late 1970 - and I'd suggest the mass hysteria for the last 35-years has been blaming Thatcher for the fall of our industrial base.
I know VERY WELL how economies work, I have followed global economies for over 30-years - hence I have asked you nicely a few times now for your opinions why a government through its own economic, social and fiscal policies CANNOT control it's own economy - rather than stuff my opinions down your throat.
And FYI I have 'qualified' more of my opinions than you have yours.
Clearly there will always be external 'shocks' that effects the likes of exports, the price of oil etc, but by and large a government's policies define economic direction e.g. if a government spends £170 billion on Quangos, rather than lowering taxes for the poor and building homes for England (creating different types of jobs), what is the more socially useful and sustainable?
Anyhoo, if you want another crack at a debate with facts of your own some other time, I'd be happy to carry on.
You can't even be bothered to argue the original case on its merits, just more hysterical 'but Labour is worse and trade unions are evil!' while spitting out statements that demonstrate you have no clue about how Parliament, constituency work or government operate. You also don't understand, or don't want to understand, the way western economies work because it would undermine your flawed argument, which is I assume why you're spitting out economic concepts that would place you somewhat to the left of any mainstream party. Your posts directly contradict each other and are riddled with logical fallacies you can't be bothered to acknowledge while thinking that bolding a paragraph somehow lends your argument more weight.
I'm interested in healthy discussion based on facts and reasoned, evidenced positions. I'm not finding that here which is a pity because this is an interesting issue.
Therefore, I'm bowing out.
JassyRadlett….I believe that when you LIST “the wide range of things that control the economy” on here, we will see how much governments do/can control – if they have their priorities right.
Re the 2nd jobs Point; Firstly the sheer on-going hypocrisy of the Labour Party convinced as a traditional Tory perk it should stop, but then when they realised how many ex minister Labour MP’s had directorships – and how many ordinary MP’s wanted to jump ship in 2010 needed to either keep, or find 2nd job work experience before then, they shelved an ‘outside influence’ policy.
Furthermore, what are the hours of all these 2nd jobs directorships etc, as if time off MP’s day jobs is the issue, rather than ‘outside influence’ on MP’s who would have declared their interest in that company/business sector to parliament – surely if the time needed can come out of MP’s own time i.e read reports in evening or on train journeys, these 2nd jobs should not be an issue.
Re the Trade Union ‘outside influence’, which is more financially and politically deep rooted into the whole Labour parliamentary party. Lets take one as an example, Unite, what did they put into the Labour Party coffers last year, around £8 million? What did Ed Miliband in the same year directly receive in funding from that union alone, around £115,000? How many Shadow Cabinet members to they directly ‘fund’, of the (at least) 80% that are funded by trade unions? How many of the bolt-standard MP’s have funding/affiliations to trade unions????
Spot the democratic hypocrisy here, not just on Labour waiting another several years to curb 2nd jobs due to their own interests back then, on ‘outside influences’, but in the INCREASING trade union influences and non 2nd job related PAYMENTS for the benefit of the Labour Party, from the muppet brother/leader of their own choosing TO THE POLICIES LABOUR WOULD IMPLIMENT IN GOVERNMENT e.g. the UK being a debt/deficit economy under Labour , or living within our means.
“At Labour’s special conference on union reforms a month ago, he made a blockbuster speech in which he declared: "This is our party. And we’re going nowhere."
“But now the union firebrand dubbed "Red Len" has suggested that Unite may do just that. Go and support another party that is.”
“It could happen, he said, if Labour lost the next election and failed to be on the side of ordinary working people."
“This bombshell intervention came as McCluskey became the first union general secretary to address political journalists at a Press Gallery lunch. And good copy he was, too.”
“As the Labour MP sitting next to me observed, he was quite well behaved in his speech. It was his answers to questions that did the damage.”
“However, he did say in his speech: "Democracy needs real choices and alternatives. Variations of austerity will not excite them (voters) to go to the polls come election day.”
No threats from Unites McCluskey there then; do what I want or we will stop funding supporting Labour (as a party and individually) and find another leftie party, who like Putin, wants to go back to the Soviet 1970’s ‘good old democratic days’
We came close to losing our democracy in 1979
“Douglas Eden reveals the extraordinary penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists and the extent of Callaghan’s toleration of the hard Left."
And Labour see THE threat to our democracy by having a balance of business interests/Private Sector, that 100% funds the Public Sector, represented in parliament? Yeah right.
I told you what I think controls economies - a wide range of factors that influence them, rather than anything having individual control. I set out clearly what some of them were. As a proponent of a market economy, I'm surprised you're struggling with this.
Ultimately if anything 'controlled' our economy there would be state control of all systems of production and consumption and a radically different system of government.
We can argue about the impacts of governments choosing to spend their way through and out of recessions as an alternative to a sharper shock and restructuring, but we will probably get no further than the many economists who disagree on the question.
If you don't think trade unions or their 'control' of the Labour party influenced the recession, what on earth was your 'referendum' question about?
And you still haven't explained why you think it's beneficial for MPs to have second jobs, as distinct to a background in and support for business, which is the topic you started.
Let me spell it out, I do not believe that the trade unions had anything to do with the 2007/8 financial/economic crisis, unless it is proved that the 1 million plus increase in Public Sector workers from 1997 to 2010 was due to public sector union pressure - in which case that inflated our 'costs' to 'revenue' base = larger budget deficit.
The structure of the Uk economy prior to 2007/8, without a doubt made the length of our recession worse, as evidenced by the 7% fall in GDP during the first year, that if memory serves didn't happen to any other major economy, other than the basket cases needing IMF help. Government continued hiring and deficit spending from £30 odd £billion in 2007 to £157 bil in 2010 gave the impression of less of a GDP recession, but it was never sustainable.
If you don't believe governments do NOT control economies through economic and fiscal e.g. taxation, policies, I'd love to know what you think does
Governments influence economies. So do central banks. So do consumers, businesses, investors, and other economies.
Most economists agree that if government could have prevented the crash of 2008 in the UK (which is in itself very doubtful due to the interlinked nature of a global economy) it would have been through tighter regulation of the banking sector. This was seen to be anti-business so hadn't happened. The allegation (from politicians of all hues, and others) against the then-government is that they were too cosy with the banking sector and business in general to have taken those regulatory steps. I'm not sure where you think the unions came into it.
What happened after the crash, and whether government action made things worse or prevented a deeper recession, is very debatable and something we probably need much more hindsight to see.
With statements like 'governments control economies' you'll forgive people for questioning what you actually mean when you make sweeping statements that make it appear you haven't the first clue what you are talking about when it comes to politics, government or economics.
I did not say JOINTLY responsible for both economic crisis’s, I had hoped posters had the brains to work out who was in the frame in 1979 and 2007/8, for themselves.
Governments controlled the levers of interest rates before Brown came in, as arguably this was the one useful post 1997 ‘surprise’ policy that didn’t rob the people, although throughout the decade to 2007, under the designated BoE controlling the Base Rate, our base rate (due to our stubborn inflation?) was higher than any other G7 nation.
Governments do control economies through their economic and fiscal policies. An anti business, pro big fat State, pro high business and personal taxes, pro immigration with high domestic unemployment, forgetting to build homes, government - will end in disaster EVERY time.
Do you honestly think that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the influence of trade unions? Honestly?
Do you also think the government took or forced decisions on interest rates? If so, why didn't interest rates go up after the change of government?
You also seem to believe that governments 'control' economies. I suspect many wish that were true.
You are rather undermining your credibility.
PigletJohn….I agree with you, but we should put in a second question within a Referendum.
Question: Do you want (or think democratically healthy) a 35% of voters perpetual Socialist State, controlled by Trade Union money/influence as an alternative?
As the second question has more relevance to the probability of a puppet government controlled by outside interests – and both were responsible for the economic crisis’s in 1979 and 2010, not any corporation I can think of..
Yeah, we saw the real alternative in China and Russia, just how many tens of millions of 'the people', governed by the people in each one of those countries, died in that little experiment.
How are they both doing now with a healthy dose of capitalism - although Russia would still be in the dark ages without oil/gas.
Show me one current major industrial nation (with a well funded welfare/benefit system) without 'capitalism' i.e. a thriving private sector, a stock market, a domestic bond market, access/recycling of domestic and international funds, savings/pensions etc etc etc.
Your main century’s old bitch is that ‘the people’ are not paid enough, possibly in the unskilled sector, which gets worse in a recession – but there has never been a better time for people to focus on their own education/training/retraining, cradle to grave, to help themselves, with taxes kept as low as possible for lower paid people (rather than fat Quangocracies) to keep more of what they earn.
A capitalist funded welfare state is there to look after those that are truly poor/vulnerable, or have fallen on hard times and need help to get back on their feet – without capitalism the poor/vulnerable get State help Stalin & Chairman Mao style – again, tell me how’d that worked out for the 30-40 million plus that starved to death?
Capitalism, or should we call it the Private Sector cannot be ‘macro controlled’, especially in a global market place, where many can relocate within a year or so – especially in the UK where over 50% of the FTSE 100 companies ARE FOREIGN OWNED and should they want to move more jobs back home, their governments would welcome them with both open arms and incentives.
“French parliament passes law punishing plant closures” – Killing future inward investment?
“François Hollande admits French taxes are ‘too much’”
Governments control economies, so usually when we get major recessions, usually beginning with a ‘boom’ that governments did not want to take ‘the heat’ out of for self serving reasons, it ends in bust as the central banks put the inflationary fires out via hiking up interest rates.
Governments therefore have many options to control capitalism, and you know when they’ve made a COMPLETE PIGS EAR out of it, and that’s when in a massive recession, interest rates are put DOWN to all time lows to put ‘heat’ into the economy, rather than UP to take heat out.
> “(Reuters) - British employers are raising the salaries they offer to new permanent staff at the fastest rate in nearly seven years as they struggle to fill vacancies, a survey showed on Tuesday.”
Again, you're misleading people. After the biggest fall in peace time living standards, it's not surprising that eventually there would be an upturn. However, there is still a very long way to go to recover to even pre-crisis levels.
"Looking forward, there is little reason to expect a strong recovery in living standards over the next few years” - Institute of Fiscal Studies (2014)
> Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has proven to be sustainable, fat unfunded by balanced economic growth government/Quangocracies aren’t and you end up with £1.5 tril of national debt.
Capitalism and 'sustainable' are probable two words in the English language which should not be spoken together, unless they include the word 'not'.
A periodic crisis every 30 years, increasing wealth inequality, perpetual wars, and environmental disaster are among the things Capitalism has 'sustained' for humanity.
*ridiculous argument. Though I am taken with the 'ridicpus' alternative.
PigletJohn put it very well.
The way I look at it:
So, Mr/Ms Scroggins, you want me to vote for you, and you want to be an M.P.
Do you think it is a full-time job? Or part-time?
I think business is good. I think politicians having experience outside politics is good.
I think politicians having lucrative second jobs that lead to almost inevitable conflicts of interest is bad. It is one of the big problems with an unelected, undemocratic and unremunerated upper house. It is one of the problems of allowing elected MPs to have active outside interests. There are problems with blind trusts etc for the duration of a ministerial appointment but it's a damn sight better than second jobs.
I have a relatively sensitive job. I am prohibited from having a second job without express investigation and permission from my chief executive, were he to be convinced there was no conflict of interest. Such permission is rare - and rightly so. MPs have a lot more influence and power than I do, they should not be held to a lower standard of probity.
Quite aside from the conflict of interest point, being a good MP is a very time consuming job (my own MP is excellent and is very visible and active in the constituency including during the Parliamentary recesses some people insist on calling 'holidays'.
I also believe that as the leadership and composition of political parties change, so too do their policy platforms. Harking back to 'why didn't they do it under Brown/Blair/Major/Thatcher' is a ridicpus argument based on the idea that political platforms are set in aspic and that different leadership teams don't take their parties in different directions.
I think that before anyone is allowed to stand as an MP they should have worked in a non political job for 5 years.
ttosca...I won’t even bother to answer your last post/points in any depth, it is so full of denial, mistruths and ignorance.
Re the size of the £1.7 trillion UK Pension funds & the Public Sector final salary schemes needing excellent returns to save taxpayer contributions/money.
Re the relationship between government and international corporations = more private sector jobs, higher salaries as the labour market gets tighter, a larger tax take and a better funded Public Sector = better living standards for all.
“(Reuters) - British employers are raising the salaries they offer to new permanent staff at the fastest rate in nearly seven years as they struggle to fill vacancies, a survey showed on Tuesday.”
“The figures from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation suggest Britain's strong economic recovery last year is finally translating into higher pay.”
“The REC said its monthly survey showed that average salaries for permanent staff were up by the biggest amount since July 2007, though wage growth for temporary staff slowed slightly.”
"Worsening candidate shortages mean that the number of people available to fill both temporary and permanent jobs is falling at the sharpest rate in nearly a decade," he added.”
Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has proven to be sustainable, fat unfunded by balanced economic growth government/Quangocracies aren’t and you end up with £1.5 tril of national debt.
> ttosca…excuse me “for confusing you with a partisan Labour supporter” due to your daily balanced rhetoric, in a 2-main party system where one will be the next P.M., fairly understanding their records in power and why they introduced policies in fair economic times and foul – and the legacies they left. Hmmm.
I didn't say I was 'balanced'. I'm not 'balanced' at all, in the same way that I am not 'balanced' about rape.
Nor am I Labour supporter. I've said said this a million times. Stop playing the fool.
It doesn't matter if it's a 2 or 3 main party system. I'm not playing 'teams', and this approach to politics is part of the problem, as are people like you who play partisan politics all the time.
> On ‘balance’, I think that it is MORE than fair to say, based on your rhetoric, that your politics are far closer to Old Labour’s e.g. “And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence”.
Who cares? Old Labour doesn't exist anymore. I can't vote for them, nor can anyone else.
> And I can live with that statement, other than the shareholders that own those businesses and entrust the Directors to run a globally competitive company, ARE mainly “the working public” usually via their pension funds.
A small minority of the public hold shares in companies, and the vast majority will only see small dividends.
Company pension schemes are not usually predicated on the performance of a company, nor should an employee have to sacrifice wages and workers rights in order to keep a minority of shareholders happy with the profitability of a company.
> So moving this subject on, I think that we would both agree that WITHOUT BUSINESSES, there are no jobs, no salaries - so no “working public” pay rates versus inflation, or anything else to worry about, other than if businesses and workers aren’t paying taxes, there is no funding of JSA/Benefits/Welfare - WITHOUT perpetual higher national debt and ever higher taxes for those lucky enough to still be in work.
Calm down. There isn't a lack of businesses going around, or a lack of wealth. It's not like there is a dearth of Capitalism on this planet. The problem is that the wealth in concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. The planet has never produced so much wealth. We have wealth in abundance.
The problem, again, is that corporations are paying less and less tax, people more and more. People are being paid less and less in wages, while at the same time producing more and more.
Three decades of corporate cock-sucking since the beginning of neo-liberalism hasn't succeeded in making the world a better, more prosperous place -- except for the top 5% of people at the top. And that is exactly how it was intended to work.
So please don't waste my time with more bullshit about how we need to suck even more corporate cock. Neo-liberalism is a failed economic experiment, as far as the puiblic is concerned.
ttosca…excuse me “for confusing you with a partisan Labour supporter” due to your daily balanced rhetoric, in a 2-main party system where one will be the next P.M., fairly understanding their records in power and why they introduced policies in fair economic times and foul – and the legacies they left. Hmmm.
On ‘balance’, I think that it is MORE than fair to say, based on your rhetoric, that your politics are far closer to Old Labour’s e.g. “And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence”.
And I can live with that statement, other than the shareholders that own those businesses and entrust the Directors to run a globally competitive company, ARE mainly “the working public” usually via their pension funds.
So moving this subject on, I think that we would both agree that WITHOUT BUSINESSES, there are no jobs, no salaries - so no “working public” pay rates versus inflation, or anything else to worry about, other than if businesses and workers aren’t paying taxes, there is no funding of JSA/Benefits/Welfare - WITHOUT perpetual higher national debt and ever higher taxes for those lucky enough to still be in work.
A perpetual socialist government/coalition in England enabled by non democratic boundaries, heavily influenced by relatively militant trade unions funding the party and individual MPs, where businesses do NOT feel represented in a UK government is therefore DEFINITELY NOT my idea of democracy – as we have been here before and it was not sustainable – but that is the direction Labour under Ed Miliband is clearly taking us.
When Labour & UK Trade Unions last ‘shared’ power and didn’t have the same priorities =Thatcher.
“The Winter of Discontent refers to the winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, during which there were widespread strikes by public sector trade unions demanding larger pay rises, following the ongoing pay caps of the Labour Party government led by James Callaghan against Trades Union Congress opposition to control inflation, during the coldest winter for 16 years.”
“The strikes were a result of the Labour government's attempt to control inflation by a forced departure from their social contract with the unions by imposing rules on the public sector that pay rises be kept below 5%, to control inflation in itself and as an example to the private sector.”
When UK Trade Unions dictated to businesses and German & Japanese workers didn’t = mass producing British car companies decimated.
“British Leyland's Speke factory symbolised all that was wrong with UK car manufacturing in the dark days of the 1970s, a million miles away from the high performing plants of today at Ellesmere Port and Halewood.”
“In 1978 British Leyland's Speke Number Two plant was under threat of closure, afflicted by a series of crippling strikes, low sales of the TR7 it manufactured, and a history of poor industrial relations coupled with inefficiencies.”
“In 1970 British Leyland, who had taken over Triumph, spent £10.5 million building Speke Number Two plant, it was one of the most modern and best equipped plants in Europe designed to build 100,000 vehicles a year all under one roof.”
“When BBC Nationwide visited in February 1978 the plant only had a few months of life left.”
> Democracy is not any perpetual UK political party needing only 35% of the vote to form a majority government, or less to form a socialist coalition, strongly influenced by a militant trade union movement and lacking business input to ensure a viable/sustainable Private Sector. In fact it is a recipe for national economic disaster, citing both 1979 and 2010 as proof.
You're right. Democracy is when the public get to decide on what sort of political and economic system they want to live under. Democracy is when the public have a real choice of options in shaping their future.
Democracy is not having to choose between one of three main neo-liberal business parties which represent the interests of the ruling class, rather than the working public. That is the situation we have now.
I think you have me confused with a partisan Labour supporter.
> ttosca’s democracy; Labour need 35% of the vote for a Labour majority government in 2015, the Conservatives currently with just over 36% of the 2010 vote were 20 seats SHORT of a 326 seat majority of two.
How is this 'my' democracy?
> ttosca’s democracy; Labour party funded over 80% by trade unions (often with militant influence), with Miliband and around 80% of the Shadow Cabinet directly receiving trade union funding and heaven knows how many other MP’s.
How is this 'my' democracy?
And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence.
Unless they have made their money before becoming an MP, usually self-made, having taken risks to create a successful business over time, learn the importance of a balanced budget, pay taxes, employ people – and then they’re usually called Tories and ‘out of touch’ with the real world.
A serious point is an MP’s salary; I forget what is currently is, but without pre MP wealth, or a second income, I know that I could not run two homes (one in London) and raise a family of 5, on it - so testing the expenses ‘perks’ would be my plan B – even trying to improve juniors CV with parliamentary work experience.
Only says they will not be allowed to receive money but that doesn't stop them working for benefits or having a member of their family employed who will receive money.
MPs will always be on the make no matter what.
Joka-ca-ca…….are you playing with a full deck?
Although for you to preach your version democracy and sneer and label any other poster on here “partisan” kinda answers that.
ttosca’s democracy; Labour need 35% of the vote for a Labour majority government in 2015, the Conservatives currently with just over 36% of the 2010 vote were 20 seats SHORT of a 326 seat majority of two.
ttosca’s democracy; Labour party funded over 80% by trade unions (often with militant influence), with Miliband and around 80% of the Shadow Cabinet directly receiving trade union funding and heaven knows how many other MP’s.
So whether outside jobs are a serious democracy issue or what, as arguably any policy past by a parliament elected by the people, surely has some democratic point – what you are clearly missing is that for the party in government allowing the expenses scandal, with 5 MP’s jailed and ex trade unionist Mick Martin the only Speaker of the House ever told to step down, for encouraging it – these are all certainly stark hypocrisy issues.
While I find it highly NON democratic that Labour has both waited until it hardly affects their pockets for any party to have non trade union outside interests, better known as “business”, while increasingly taking party and personal funds from a trade union.
Traditional business experience and business representation in a parliamentary melting pot of 650 MP’s is important as maybe if we had more business and non government funded job creation experience within the 1997 parliamentary party, instead of Brown surrounding himself with new financial advisors and old style trade unions – we wouldn’t have seen such lop sided growth of the financial and Public Sectors.
Democracy is not any perpetual UK political party needing only 35% of the vote to form a majority government, or less to form a socialist coalition, strongly influenced by a militant trade union movement and lacking business input to ensure a viable/sustainable Private Sector. In fact it is a recipe for national economic disaster, citing both 1979 and 2010 as proof.
You haven't made an argument, Isitmebut. In fact, you've provided evidence against your own argument.
You are so blinded by partisanship, you don't even realise what you're doing.
I'm sure that Labour will be affected by this legislation, and I'm glad.
I couldn't give a crap if Labour didn't bring it in back in 2007 or whenever. If the law is brought in now, it will reduce the influence of money on politics, and it will affect all parties.
This is not a partisan issue. It's a democracy issue.
Join the discussion
Please login first.